Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Long-duration spaceflight results in musculoskeletal, cardiorespiratory, and sensorimotor deconditioning. Historically, exercise has been used as a countermeasure to mitigate these deleterious effects that occur as a consequence of microgravity exposures. The International Space Station (ISS) exercise community describes their approaches, biomedical surveillance, and lessons learned in the development of exercise countermeasure modalities and prescriptions for maintaining health and performance among station crews. This report is focused on the first 10 yr of ISS defined as Expeditions 1-25 and includes only crewmembers with missions > 30 d on ISS for all 5 partner agencies (United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada). All 72 cosmonauts and astronauts participated in the ISS exercise countermeasures program. This Supplement presents a series of papers that provide an overview of the first decade of ISS exercise from a multidisciplinary, multinational perspective to evaluate the initial countermeasure program and record its operational limitations and challenges. In addition, we provide results from standardized medical evaluations before, during, and after each mission. Information presented in this context is intended to describe baseline conditions of the ISS exercise program. This paper offers an introduction to the subsequent series of manuscripts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".